Cited by

“We inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing.”

19 In assessing a child’s best interests, the district court must balance “(1) the child ’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; (2) the parent ’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

DECISION Parental rights may only be terminated for “grave and weighty reasons.”

DECISION Parental rights may be terminated only for “grave and weighty reasons.”

In assessing a child’s best interests, the district court must balance “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child .” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

DECISION Parental rights may only be terminated for “grave and weighty reasons.”

A district court may terminate parental rights “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

In assessing a child’s best interests, the district court must balance “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

DECISION A district court may terminate parental rights “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

A district court must balance “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child 12 relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

Before terminating parental rights, a district court must consider “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

A best-interests analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

A best-interest analysis requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

That statute requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

(quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Juv.

DECISION “[P]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

DECISION “[P]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

The district court “must balance three factors: (1) the child’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; (2) the parent’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted ); see Minn. R. Juv.

“[P]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

(affirming a district court’s best- interests determination because the child’s immediate need for permanency as well as stable, nurturing, drug -free caretakers outweighed any competing interests).

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, , and we review the district court’s ultimate determination of palpable unfitness for an abuse of discretion

For example, in this court affirmed a district court’s best- interests determination based on similar evidence, which indicated that the child’s “immediate need for permanency as well as stable, nurturing, drug-free caretakers outweigh[ed] any competing interests.” Id.

DECISION “[P]arental rights may be terminated only for grave and weighty reasons.”

“[A] trial court may involuntarily terminate parental rights when only one criterion [for termination] is proven.”

But best-interests findings need not “go into great detail.”

(holding that “[a]lthough the trial court did not go into great detail,” it concluded that the child’s need for stability and nurtur ing outweighed any competing interest).

See, ( concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion even though the district court did not go into great detail when making best interests findings).

“[C]ircumstances that justify involuntary term ination do not necessarily justify voluntary termination.”

P ., (“The caselaw makes it clear that circumstances that justify involuntary termination do not necessarily justify voluntary termination.

d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004); see J.R.B., d at 905 (“Competing interests [of the child] include such things as a stable environment, health cons iderations and the child’s preferences.” (quotation omitted)); J.K.T., d at 92 (stating that we give “considerable deference” to the district court’s best-inte

The district court’s conclusions need not “go into great detail.” d 703, 711 (Minn. App. 2004).

(noting that the district court’s findings need not “go into great detail”).

D E C I S I O N I. Parental rights may be terminated “only for grave and weighty reasons.”

“In analyzing the best interests of the child, the court must balan ce three factors: (1) the child’ s interest in preserving the parent-child relationship; (2) the p arent’s interest in preserving the parent -child relationship; and (3) any competing interest of the child.” (quotation omitted) .

6, 2012); d 538, 544 (Minn. App. 2009); In re Welfare of D.L.R.D.